Yogurt Maker vs. Playground Bully

 

 

 

Case study
Q:
1. What options did Chobani have in dealing with the Alex Jones allegations?
2. What were the risks in the Chobani pro-communications strategy?
3. Had Jones not folded so quickly after the Chobani lawsuit, what other communications options would you have proposed that Chobani’s founder consider?

By 2017, the issue of immigration had become a lightning rod for controversy around the world.
Conflict in Syria and parts of Africa, in particular, stimulated hundreds of thousands of refugees searching for a more peaceful place to reside. Europe was overrun with immigrants, causing strains on resources and political conflict. In the United States, candidate Donald Trump adopted the right-wing banner of reining in immigration, particularly from political hotspots in the Middle East.
Against this rising tide of anti-immigrant sentiment emerged a most unusual communications battle, pitting, of all things, a yogurt company against a right-wing media personality. The year-long, bare-knuckles, public street fight between Chobani Yogurt and Alex Jones was unprecedented.
Yogurt Maker vs. Playground Bully
The battle began when the founder of Chobani, Hamdi Ulukaya, a Turkish immigrant of Kurdish descent, was moved by the problems of fellow-immigrants and began a campaign to hire refugees in his yogurt factories around America.
Ulukaya’s rags-to-riches story began with a small yogurt business in upstate New York and expanded to a factory in Twin Falls, Idaho, which employed 300 refugees. Additionally, Ulukaya began a Chobani foundation to help migrants.
Such pro-immigration policies attracted the wrath of right-wing media and websites, including Breitbart News, formerly headed by once Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon. Quick to join the attack on Chobani was the InfoWars.com website and “The Alex Jones Channel” on YouTube, controlled by Jones.
In particular, the Jones media was incensed by a report alleging that the Chobani Twin Falls factory was connected to a 2016 child sexual assault attack and a rise in local tuberculosis cases.
When Infowars aired its charges, Ulukaya was stunned, contending that his company had nothing to do with the reported attacks. And he was right. According to the Twin Falls County prosecutor, the assault case, which did indeed involve local refugees sexually assaulting a five-year-old girl, had nothing whatever to do with Chobani or its factory.
The fact his accusations were wrong meant little to Jones. The right-wing conspiracy theorist refused to back down and, instead, turned up his communications bull horn; besieging his loyal followers to join in the condemnation of the immigrant-run yogurt company.
Earlier, Jones had launched similar, public campaigns contending that the September 11 attacks on America were orchestrated by the U.S. government, and the 2012 massacre of children at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut was a hoax perpetrated by anti-gun advocates.
Jones was known for playing fast and loose with the facts and rarely backing down if someone dared to challenge him. As a consequence of the size and ferocity of the Jones megaphone, few of those who found themselves in Jones’ crosshairs were willing to take him on. Most felt that answering back against Jones’ accusations would only serve to bring more attention to Jones’ claims (Figure 3-4).
Picking a Fight with the Wrong Man
But in singling out the soft-spoken Chobani founder, Jones messed with the wrong adversary.
Ulukaya refused to take the undeserved criticism lying down. Rather, he decided to fight fire with fire and let the public know how he and his company were being unfairly targeted. In April 2017, Chobani filed a high-profile lawsuit against Jones and his media companies, accusing them of knowingly issuing false and defamatory reports about the company.
Predictably, Jones—who’d seen others try and fail to shut him up—came out swinging.
“We will defeat these people,” he broadcast to his followers. “This is my fight, this is your fight, this is our fight against a bunch of authoritarian, globalist, third- world populations allied with the global elite, who are totally coldblooded.”
The firebrand vowed to stay in this fight to the end and never surrender.
But Ulukaya refused to yield, ratcheting up the communication by accusing Jones and his media companies of acting with “actual malice” to harm Chobani’s reputation. Further, the company said it had endured “substantial damage” from the Jones campaign, which discouraged customers from purchasing Chobani yogurt.
A month after Chobani threw down the communications gauntlet, Jones folded like a cheap suit.
As part of an out-of-court settlement, Jones announced that the statements he had made about Chobani, “I now understand to be wrong.” Further, he acknowledged that all tweets and video he had posted against Chobani had been retracted and would not be reposted.
“On behalf of InfoWars, I regret that we mischaracterized Chobani, its employees and the people of Twin Falls, Idaho, the way we did,” summarized a repentant Jones.
In deciding to meet communication with communication, the yogurt company and its founder had successfully beaten back the big-mouth bully.

 

 

 

Sample Solution

withdrawal from the capacity, including the offer of government resources, for example, neighborhood authority run care homes or banks to privately owned businesses. Also, privatization of social consideration can incorporate the utilization of vouchers to permit administration clients to “search around” for administrations, as utilized (Nightingale and Pindus 1997). For the reasons for this review, this exposition centers around the most well-known type of privatization; contracting out administrations to private associations. Private area associations can be for-benefit or not-for-benefit, for example, religious gatherings, establishments, social undertakings and good cause. In investigating the subject of privatization of grown-up friendly consideration in the United Kingdom a great deal of data could be found in overflow. Social consideration administrations are regular objects of social arrangement change as government assistance state in England, as in the remainder of the UK, and face expanding strain on existing grown-up friendly consideration arrangement and expect development in future interest (Anttonen, Baldock and Sipilä, 2003). In 1995 private consideration use for the more seasoned grown-ups and constantly not well was simply over £8 billion (Harrington and Pollock, 1998). As per Age Concern (2008) individuals live longer than at any other time, and the pace of more established individuals north of 65 years whom Leadbeater et al., (2008) say are the biggest gathering of beneficiaries of social consideration in England, has been expanding progressively. Maturing populace has achieved worries in the conveyance of social consideration and puts significant extra strain on openly given social consideration. For instance, in 2000, 16% of the populace in the UK was beyond 65 years old. The World Health Organization (2008) has anticipated that the world will have north of 2 billion individuals living beyond 60 2050 years old enough by 2050. The more established individuals matured between 75-84 years were viewed as the quickest developing age bunch on the planet, developing at a rate 3.8% each year with one fifth of the more established populace imagined to be eighty years and more established by 2050 (United Nations, 2002). Grown-up friendly consideration, including care of a maturing populace, is one of the large issues England face as of now. The arrangement of sufficient grown-up friendly consideration represents a huge public help challenge. Interest for care because of maturing populace is ascending while public spending is falling. Overall, more seasoned individuals utilizing social consideration benefits today have more noteworthy requirements than their partners at least 10 quite a while back. The wellbeing status of more seasoned individuals has somewhat disintegrated throughout the last 10 years, likely due to longer future. A report by (CHPI, 2016) features that around £24 billion is spent on grown-up friendly consideration in England consistently, the greater part of which is spent on more established individuals getting care either in their own homes or in a private. In friendly consideration, the 1989 White Paper, Caring for People, underlined the need to work on decision and convey administrations that answer deftly to individual necessities (Means et al. 2003). Before the White Paper, social consideration administrations were dominatingly subsidized, coordinated and straightforwardly conveyed by nearby state-financed (‘in-house’) suppliers. 2.1.2 History of social consideration Government arrangement for social consideration for more seasoned individuals in trouble has a long history in England and across the United Kingdom. From the 1601 Elizabethan Poor Law with administrations subsidized through area rates, an

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.